Saturday, November 10, 2012

Updated. I have embedded the audio from the interview below.
I will be appearing on Our Common Ground tonight at 10pm EST.

Janice Graham was one of the first folks to invent me to do an interview. Her show has a long history and I am always honored to be included. We will be talking about Obama's re-election, what comes next, and whatever other subjects Janice chooses to bring to the floor. The show is pretty relaxed--and it is an hour--so we should have plenty of time to go back and forth.

Our Common Ground is also live. You can listen at this link. The show does accept phone calls so do chime in if you are so inclined. Should be fun. I hope to hear from you tonight.

Friday, November 9, 2012

I came upon this video of Rush Limbaugh's show and just had to share it. Here, "El Rushbo" is conducting a post graduate level seminar in Orwellian Right-wing new speak.

This is postmodern agitprop political theater: the master liar is bemoaning a lack of truth and honesty in the media while suggesting that conservatives did not engage in a campaign of character assassination against Barack Obama.

In the Exorcist movies, we are cautioned to never talk to the devil because he mixes truths with lies. The same rule applies when listening to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

One would think that the magical thinking, Fox News media bubble that undermined Mitt Romney's electoral chances would urge the bloviators on the Right towards some degree of moderation in their pathological lying.

If Limbaugh is a bellwether, the Republican propagandists are going to simply rewrite history and double down on this habit. I used to believe that the Conservative media apparatus was one of the most effective propaganda machines in recent memory. However, as I observe their behavior post-Romney, it would appear that the Right is simply continuing with the same old lies and not updating them for the new season.

Don't the lies have to be internally consistent in order to be compelling and believable for the Right-wing media's audience? Or is Conservative Red State America so out of touch, and its supplicants so disoriented from reality, that to embrace empirical truth is akin to an act of religious heresy?

The carnival barkers and flimflam artists on the Right are like End Times prophets. They predict that the end of the world will come on Friday. Said event does not occur. These seers change the date to next Wednesday. The world does not end (again). Their believers suffer no loss of faith; they simply believe that the schedule was changed and their leader has a special and unique relationship with god.

The Right-wing media's audience and the base of the Tea Party GOP are those very same fools. Is it even possible to have a politics of consensus, in the interest of the Common Good, when the basic facts of reality, and the terms of discussion, can not even be agreed upon?

Maybe white conservative voters should have mass orgies where no one wears a condom? Would this guarantee victory in the future?

There are many theories about why Mitt Romney lost on Tuesday.

Some smart folks are talking about the importance of the Democrats' superior ability to microtarget voters, how Obama flipped retrospective voters to evaluate the economy in terms favorable to him, and how efforts at shrinking the electorate through voter suppression actually hurt the Tea Party GOP.

Other smart people are engaging in some real talk as they call out the Republican Party's belief in magic and lies. As I suggested here, the Tea Party GOP is a cult where political orthodoxy serves as a religion. Faith--what is a belief in things that cannot be proved through normal means, appeals to science, or empiricism--has damaged the Right's ability to reason about political reality.

The implications of this dynamic are worrisome: Mitt Romney's defeat, and the Tea Party GOP's surprise at that fact, is a symptom of mass psychosis.

The easy money, what is a sexy story that puts butts in the seats, is being devoted to the puzzle of white voters and how demographic changes have doomed the Republican Party to obsolescence. By comparison, I would suggest that all of the energy that is being spent on figuring out the "white problem" in America's electoral politics is very premature, and tinged by a lack of historical context.

The decline of White America thesis, and what changing demographics will mean for the country's politics and future, is an old and tired trope that has been around since (at least) the end of the Civil War. The befuddlement by the Right-wing media and political establishment in response to their thorough thrashing by President Obama and his coalition of women, young people, and people of color, is focused on how to bring more brown people into the Republican Party.

Here, there is no real interest in altering issue positions to appeal to a broader base; no, the Right is ironically deploying a strategy of political black and brown face quota theater (what they accuse liberals and the Left of doing) where people of color will instinctively come over to the Right because of racial kinship and affinity.

The herrenvolk politics of conservative white male America are mirrored by the fears and worries of White Nationalists about the extinction of the "white race" and what their propagandists have termed "Demographic Winter."

The Republican Party is the United States' de facto White Political Party. Therefore, the Republican Party has a great deal of overlap with racist white people. All Republicans are not racists. However, racially resentful and bigoted white people are much more likely to be Republican and conservative. In all, if one were to draw a Venn diagram of both the Republican Party and White Nationalists, the overlap would be pretty significant.

I am unsure about how the responsible adults in the Republican Party will reclaim their organization and its proud and respectable history.

It is clear that the United States is mired in extreme political polarization. While there is all sorts of silly talk fan fiction about a "second civil war," (which is not going to happen) the more substantive and important concern is how do we rehabilitate the Republican Party so that it can act responsibly as one of the country's two institutional parties. I am also concerned about how the Tea Party GOP's extremism makes the Republican Party a fertile recruiting ground for White Nationalists.

As the "reality" of demographic change in America remains a talking point in the weeks to come, the narrative of white victimology and imperiled Whiteness will become even more common. This cannot be to the benefit of the Common Good. It will be a blessing for white racist organizations, Fox News, and bloviators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

A national obsession over the obsolescence of White America in the Age of Obama cannot end well. To paraphrase Langston Hughes, what does Whiteness do when its dreams are deferred? Does it shrivel up? Or does it lash out?

Thursday, November 8, 2012

While Barack Obama has been re-elected to a second term as the United States first President who happens to be black, there is still much work to be done if America is to become truly "post-racial":

JACKSON, Miss. — A protest at the University of Mississippi against the re-election of President Barack Obama grew into crowd of about 400 people with shouted racial slurs as rumors of a riot spread on social media. Two people were arrested on minor charges.

The university said in a statement Wednesday that the gathering at the student union began late Tuesday night with about 30 to 40 students, but grew within 20 minutes as word spread. Some students chanted political slogans while others used derogatory racial statements and profanity, the statement said.

The incident comes just after the 50th anniversary of violent rioting that greeted the forced integration of Ole Miss with the enrollment of its first black student, James Meredith.

Ole Miss Chancellor Dan Jones promised an investigation and said “all of us are ashamed of the few students who have negatively affected the reputations of each of us and of our university.”

The American people learned an important lesson during these last four years. Barack Obama is a transformative figure; however, Obama is not a superman who will heal America's racial wounds through his mere presence in the White House.

Could it be that Barack Obama was reelected because 1) voters found his issue positions much more preferable than Mitt Romney's, but also 2) that a good number of white voters like Obama as a person but do not necessarily feel much affinity towards their fellow black and brown Americans? The United States is a multicultural democracy which remains highly segregated along lines of race and class. Race relations in the Age of Obama are a confirmation of that fact.

Before the American people take a victory lap of self-congratulatory delight in how changing demographics may force a new multiracial political realignment in the near future, they still need to confront the racist vitriol which has moved from the front stage to the backstage--where it comes out through acts of implicit bias, institutional discrimination, micro-aggressions, and cyber racism.

Racism is a tradition and a habit. It is not just confined to older Americans. The hope that white supremacy and racism will quite literally "die off" is lazy thinking. As demonstrated by this near riot at the University of Mississippi, there are young white people who are more than willing to carry on the racist legacies of their parents and grandparents.

Ultimately, one of the greatest perils caused by the myth of post racial, post civil rights America, is that young people believe that a country which is capable of electing a black man as president has conquered its racial demons. They need to be reminded, often, that post civil rights America is a blip on the radar, what is an experiment, which could be undone.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The post-mortem for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has begun in earnest. Obama's deft campaign strategy aside, was Romney doomed by an inability to tell the truth, low likeability ratings, Ayn Randian plutocratic comments about the "47 percent," his position on letting the car industry fail, or consistent appeals to the far Right through a use of anti-black and anti-immigrant rhetoric?

There are many causes of political death for Romney. In time, some will be proven to be more important and significant than others.

The leading explanation suggests that Romney and the Tea Party GOP were defeated because of changing demographics, and an electoral base which was overly dependent on white voters. Because the Republican Party is the country's de facto White People's Political Party, Romney put himself in an untenable position: to motivate the base, he would have to embrace policies that would push away and alienate women, people of color, young people, and a part of the white electorate who was turned off by the Right's herrenvolk, "take our county back" appeals to a mythic White American past.

Romney and the Republican Party's America no longer exists. In truth, it was always a chimera and a lie. But, the lie could be sustained because enough white folks took it to be real.

Whiteness is characterized by a set of attributes which include invisibility and a sense of being "normal." White racial identity--and white masculinity in particular--does not like being interrogated.

Ironically, in a version of "racial heliocentrism," whiteness loves being the center of all things.

As such, intense discussions about "white working class male voters" have become a part of America's public discourse in almost every recent national election.

In the Age of Obama, conversations about the meaning of whiteness in this "new" America have become increasingly common as well. To wit: there are a number of articles on a variety of news sites, blogs, and in other media, that are trying to figure out "the white problem" and its relationship to Romney's defeat last night.

Does Whiteness--or at least some of its owners--like being discussed in such a public manner?

I have always felt that macro level discussions of aggregate social identities, like "blackness" and "whiteness" for example, obscure as much as they reveal. Consequently, I am very curious about how white men, as individuals, across divides of party and ideology, feel about last night's election.

Do conservative white men (or white men more generally) really feel imperiled and obsolete in the Age of Obama? Is the world really against them? Do white men who are liberal, Left leaning, progressive, independent, or otherwise aligned feel unfairly lumped in with how whites (men in particular) as a group that are being presented as obsolescent holdovers who doomed Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to defeat?

Alternatively, do white men who left their "natural" home in the Republican Party, and were not lured in by the Right's identity politics, feel good about themselves as outliers that saw a way forward and are embracing a more diverse and inclusive America?

White men are the object and not the subject in these conversations. Of course, white men are able to control the master narrative because they control the country's mass media and are the single more powerful group of people in the United States (if not the world). But, the elite white men who can act as proxies and stand-ins for "how white men feel" on the news, and among the pundit classes, are by definition not a representative group.

White folks, and white men in particular, please teach me something about these matters.

I predicted that Obama would lose tonight. I got exactly what I wanted. Obama won. Crom is good. The math heads and stats junkies like Nate Silver were right. Math is also good.

We can exhale together. My Seinfeld theory of predictions was proven correct: go for the opposite in order to get the result you want.

Drinking a Sapporo beer and smiling--I am so happy that President Obama has been elected President of the United States of America (again). "Reelection" sounds so passive to my ear. Obama was subject to a severe referendum where he was held to much higher standards than other presidents before him precisely because of his race. He won the presidency. His second term was not a vote to return to a standing decision rule. Obama's second term is the product of an active consideration by the American people about his fitness for office and legitimacy to rule.

Sometimes we, the American people, get it right despite ourselves. In this case, Obama was a superior candidate, whose policies had more appeal than Romney's, and the people stood up against the challenger's post-truth demagoguery, race baiting tactics. Race still matters. How can it not be given our country's history?

But, America is a young country of change where the children of slaves and immigrants can become full citizens and make history as representatives, senators, the professional and middle class, strivers, upwardly dreaming working class folks, and yes, as President of the United States.

American Exceptionalism is and ought not to be the bullying politics of imperialism, jingoism, and a belief that this country never apologizes abroad because "god" mandated us above the rest of the world. No, American Exceptionalism, as demonstrated by today's events, is embodied by the People evaluating two candidates, voting in the best one, and soundly rejecting policies that played to the worst of us and not the best of us.

The myth of meritocracy is often just that--a nice, self-serving, lie. Tonight, the myth was proven true by a candidate, a man, and the machine he assembled to motivate his base, craft policy, and win a second groundbreaking election. Romney lost...and he deserved to lose. Romney's back to the future Southern Strategy 2.0 is now firmly in the dustbin of history. Sure, it will motivate a good part of the electorate to vote. Other candidates may try to copy Romney's playbook. They too will likely face a similar outcome.

In all, the Republican Party is now facing demographic suicide. They must adapt, or become increasingly irrelevant, as their older members die off and the Right competes for an increasingly angry, hostile, and marginalized part of White America.

What follows is a random observation about how we have changed as a nation. At Obama's rally here in Chicago they are playing the Otis Redding song "Try a Little Tenderness," the sample flipped by Kanye West and Jay-Z for their song "Otis." Who would have ever thought such a thing was possible?

A second question. Will the Republican Party mature, reach out, and bring in the old guard centrists who were/are the adult voices in the room so that they can be competitive and work for the Common Good? Or will the Tea Party GOP dig in, become even more extreme, and further obstruct the Common Good in order to advance their increasingly narrow partisan agenda? Does Romney's defeat lead to a more reasonable Republican Party or one that is even more extreme and intransigent?

The polls will be closing in several hours. Who will be the next President of the United States?

Mitt Romney is the prince of the plutocrats. While some self-interested--and very wealth voters--would find logical reasons to support him, there are other members of the public who will vote Romney in order to "get their country back." Little do they realize that Romney is an agent of the very forces which "stole" America from them long ago.

In my professional wrestling as politics series, I have tried to highlight the carnival-like aspects of the 2012 election, the role of racial resentment and polite racism in supporting Romney (and his use of said appeals to win white voters), and offered some advice about how Obama could perhaps win over white "working class" voters.

Ultimately, the low information independent voters who will decide tonight's election do not know much about policy. They are motivated by emotion and a given candidate's skill at storytelling (or professional levels of sociopathic lying as in Romney's case). In an effort to work within their learning styles, as well as cognitive limits, I would like to offer this public an example of what a vote for Mitt Romney translates into in practical terms.

Mitt Romney is the Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase. The latter was a popular "heel" wrestler in the 1980s who flaunted his wealth, and was famous for his belief that everyone had a price. DiBiase was the embodiment of Romney's honest and plain talk in private to his donors about how half of Americans are lazy parasitic bums who live off of rich people like him. There is a significant difference between Romney and DiBiase. The latter was honest about his contempt for regular folks and the working classes.

The Million Dollar Man was a prototype for the politics of greed and Ayn Rand populism that has taken over the Republican Party and put them in a fever dream and mania state. DiBiase's character was also a great foreshadowing of the neoliberal turn: he believed in privatizing all things--including children's swimming pools--because the State and the public should be assets controlled by rich people like him. Because popular culture is a mirror for the sociopolitical, DiBiase was reflecting the trickle down lie that was Reagan-era tax policy by exaggerating its worst aspects.

Ironically, the grotesque caricature that was the Million Dollar Man was surpassed in the present by the recklessness of Wall Street, and robber baron gangster capitalists like Mitt Romney, who almost destroyed the American economy.

With the power of the 1%, and because America is a corporateocracy run for the benefit of the few, Mitt Romney has taken a professional wrestling gimmick and elevated it to the grand stage provided by a national presidential race. The question then becomes, will independents, low information voters, people mired in white racial resentment, and those who support third party candidates help to elect Mitt Romney?

We will find out soon. Your thoughts? How do you think the night will play out?

Today is election day. Many of us are stressed out about the outcome. I decided to offer an antidote and what I hope is a fun distraction. I have been asked by folks both via email and in person about doing a podcast. I demurred as it seemed like too much trouble. But after looking into the matter, and doing a bit of research, this seems like a nice feature for We Are Respectable Negroes.

It is only fitting then, that our inaugural podcast focuses on a ghetto nerd related topic. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, has sold his empire to Disney. This announcement was made last week and has provided much fodder for debate and conversation. According to some, I am an "expert" of sorts on Star Wars. I also have access to another person who knows a great deal about the films. When you begin a new venture you should do something familiar and fun. Star Wars seemed to be a perfect fit.

We will be doing a podcast every so many weeks as events demand. I also have some cool folks lined up for future interviews/conversations. I think you will be surprised by some of the people who have said they would like to chat it up here on We Are Respectable Negroes.

Hopefully, the to and fro between me and Bill the Lizard, and a peek inside a decades long conversation about Star Wars, the prequels, and the franchise's future between two old friends, will be both enlightening and entertaining.

Star Wars nerds will find this the conversation very familiar--and I hope provocative and comforting. Those who are curious about Star Wars can listen to the various parts and get some insight into matters they may not have considered previously. All others can laugh and marvel at a 60 or so minute conversation that could have gone on for much, much longer.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Probabilities are not predictions. On the eve of the 2012 presidential election, the prediction markets and experts such as Nate Silver have Obama winning with a probability of 86 percent91.4 percent. But, this has not trickled down to the true believers in Romneyworld who believe that many dozens of national and state level polls are rigged, and that riots are going to break out in the United States--led by the "urban" population--when their candidate wins tomorrow in a landslide.

Progressives and Democrats are also nervous as well. Could Obama, the country's first black president somehow get reelected after a horrible first debate performance, in a slow to recover economy, against the Right-wing propaganda machine, and a significant public who are obsessed with getting the black guy out of office?

I am very nervous about tomorrow's election. I still believe that Romney, despite the mathematical and statistical evidence to the contrary, is going to win. It is true that conservatives and the White Right are engaged in all manner of magical thinking in order to convince themselves that their candidate is actually ahead in the polls, and the evil "liberal" media have conspired against Romney to suppress the truth.

However, a healthy cynicism based on cultural, historical, and racial memory is also a valuable insight into these matters of the political and the social for black Americans, people of color, and white folks who are similarly gifted.

Superstorm Sandy has also reminded us of how race remains one of the main dividing lines in our society. While naked displays of racism are now outside of the norms of "polite society," racial micro-aggressions, the day-to-day moments of white racial hostility and animus towards people of color, continue onward.

Racial micro-aggressions can impact the lives of black and brown folks in ways that are "just" inconvenient--the store detective that follows you around while shopping; being asked for ID when using a credit card; when your friends or colleagues "complement" you by saying you are one of "the special" or "good" ones.

Alternatively, these racial micro-aggressions can also be deadly in their outcomes.

Superstorm Sandy has yet to provide an iconic example of white racist media framing such as when during Hurricane Katrina, black people were described as "looters," and whites, also trying to survive, were captioned in news photos as "looking for food."

A lack of an iconic moment does not mean that race no longer impacts life outcomes, the safety and health of people of color, or how white society chooses to view (or not) African-Americans as full members of the polity and broader community.

One of the wiser men to enter my life was a humble but impressive itinerant history professor, who taught satellite college courses to soldiers stationed in small bases, scattered throughout Western Germany (back when Germany was still divided). He once gave me very good advice I've tried to live by ever since. "Choose your causes carefully," he said. "If not, if you try to champion every good cause that comes along, you'll wear yourself out, at best, and worse, become a dilettante -- an ineffective dabbler.

Pick a few that are the most near and dear to you, and give them your all, trusting that others are out there handling the other causes with equal fervor." So let me pass along his wisdom by urging you to choose your causes carefully, and in this case, champion better causes than trying to prove that one unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) entertainment story might owe too much to another. There are worse crisis and better things for which to boldly take up arms.

[These Internets are amazing. A person can go looking for information on if the TV series Once Upon a Time is a rip off of Fables and come upon a smart and sharp observation about the sociopolitical. Good stuff.]

One of our recurring--and welcome--issues of contention here is centered upon the merits of voting for third party candidates in the upcoming election. I am on the public record as an Obama supporter. Is he perfect? No. Is he a black Superman? No. And I would not want him to be one. Are his center Right policies flawed in some instances? Yes. Is Mitt Romney an acceptable alternative? Absolutely not.

I do not believe in political parties. I respect the wisdom of the Framers on that matter. However, we live in the world as it is; we do not live the world as we wish it to be. Third parties are useful for keeping the two institutional parties on their toes. Third parties can also be a useful check on the ambitions of either the in-party or the challenger depending on one's level of sophistication and style of strategic voting.

In a close election, such as what will come to pass this Tuesday, the calls by the purists and progressive ideologues on the Left to subvert Obama as a "protest" vote, defy all good sense. If these voices are willing to destroy the village in order to liberate it, then their wasted votes on third party candidates such as Jill Stein and others make sense. I respect Utopian dreaming. But, in this moment of peril and crisis, I must be a pragmatist and utilitarian who makes a choice based upon the greatest good for the greatest many.

Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont, would seem to agree.

By contrast, one of our frequent commenters, Nomad, has noted for example how:

"The one dimension left out of the discussion is the only one with a hope of remedy for the present situation; which really is new: this Bush/Obama era. It's only been around since 2001. How quickly we get used to nooses around our necks. What you do in voting for either of these 2 party corporate puppets is validate the new status quo, the one created by George Bush.

You just move a step closer to fascism. I notice that your advocacy of Obama never includes any thing positive about his policies. Primarily you focus on the fact that he is a victim of discriminatory attack and for the reason of race identity we should rally around him. Well, there's too much at stake for epidermal politics. What difference does it make what color the downpresser is. He is still the downpresser. And if you encourage people to vote for a downpresser then at least tell them that that's what they're voting for. So they want be surprised when he starts downpressing. Matters and stakes are much too high. Know what you're voting for."

Makheru Bradley, another friend of WARN, also observed the following:

"I would not call people who have not broken the monopoly which the corrupt two-party system has on their minds silly and childish. The seductive power of “spiritual wickedness in high places” is strong. On the other hand Dr. Asa Hilliard did say “mental slavery is invisible violence.” It’s crystal clear Nomad, these people have been psychologically traumatized.

My position is that Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer did not get beaten in the jail in Winona, Mississippi and Mrs. Viola Liuzzo did not get killed by the KKK on Highway 80 in Alabama for me to choose between injustice (Barack Obama) and immorality (Mitt Romney) in a presidential election. However, if people want to vote for a war criminal or someone who is dying to become one, that’s their prerogative.

Perhaps on November 7 we will know if the contradictions in American society will continue to be nebulous, or if they will become clearer."

Will these third party boosters sleep well knowing that they have helped to defeat Barack Obama? And if he loses, have these Obama detractors surrendered any right to complain and protest given the mess they helped to create?

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Here is the recording of my interview today with Mike Papantonio and Ring of Fire Radio. I liked my tone during the interview and felt that we covered a good amount of territory. I was a bit more personal and direct than is my habit. As I said there, the personal is political for black folks and our relationship with Barack Obama.

Although many of us are unwilling to admit as much in public, the hate campaign by Mitt Romney and the Tea Party GOP against the country's first black President is predicated on the Right's deep disdain for African-Americans and our citizenship. More generally, for the White Right, people of color are not, have never been, and are incapable of being "real Americans."

I was obligated to speak on such matters in a plain and direct voice where I "turned the volume down a bit" in order to help folks hear me better.

Romney's lead among white voters, and white independents in particular, is a clear testimony to this backlash. Perceived as real, when it is a fiction in so many ways, Obama's victory was understood by many to be a "win" for black folks. Romney is gambling that there are enough racially resentful white people to return the country to its status quo ante, where a white man is "naturally" and unequestionably in charge.

In a few days, we will find out if Romney's concerted campaign to gin up white racial resentment and rage against Obama (and by implication, people of color in mass) will have born fruit.

There is a real, airtight bubble in this election, but it's not Obama's. As a middle-aged white man, in fact, I'm breaching it. White people—white men in particular—are for Mitt Romney. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney's candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him...

Good white men would never indulge in such things. The irony is clear: the United States is a country built upon maintaining, expanding, and protective the privileges of Whiteness. Mitt Romney has based a whole campaign on white identity politics and white victimology. Few in the mainstream media have had the courage to call attention to his strategy.

Folks like me are also part of the problem as well.

I often use "technical" and "academic" language when plain speaking would be more helpful for equipping readers with a vocabulary that can be used in their day-to-day conversations about race and politics.

I am also open to self-correction when appropriate. As such, Scocca's points about white folks, and my claims about why white men in particular support Mitt Romney--and the Tea Party GOP's, deranged, anachronistic, and retrograde throwback politics--can be summed up in simple terms.

America is a white supremacist country by design. Racism has (of course) changed and evolved over time. However, Whiteness as a racial identity predicated on privilege and superiority over non-whites remains in many ways very much unchanged. The need to maintain white control over America's political, social, economic, and cultural institutions is manifest in overt and subtle ways.

The election is next week. I was asked to do the "go home" show this pre-election weekend on Ring of Fire Radio. Mike Papantonio and I discussed President Obama's tenure and chances of election, as well as the relationship between white privilege, independent voters, and their support of Mitt Romney.

I also kept it real and personal as I like to do. As such, I talked about how the open racial hostility demonstrated by Mitt Romney towards the country's first black president, and the former's naked efforts to mobilize white racial resentment and old school racism to win the election, is almost quite literally a slap in the collective face of black and brown folks in this country.

I believe the personal is political; I unintentionally dropped the mask for a second and went for a plain truth, and in a tone and style, that most have not heard me use in a long time. At this point, and so close to election day, I wanted to leave it "all out there" as musicians and other performers are fond of saying. No regrets.

The poor, those who are predominantly black and brown in a city whose class divides were laid bare by Super Storm Sandy, cannot use electronic bank transfer cards (otherwise known as food stamps) to eat. There are no riots. People soldier on and try to help each other.

The dreams of the White Right in which black and brown people, the poor, and those others who have been left behind by a massive transfer of wealth and income upwards to the top 1 percent while the middle class dies on the vine, and the underclass remains forgotten and ignored, remain unfulfilled.

This has not stopped some of the fantasy hate mongers on the Right from focusing on a few cases of obligatory knucklehead behavior--which can in turn be exaggerated into tales of rampaging mobs of black looters. The political onanism of the White Right is always on display for those willing to stomach their exhibitionist behavior.

This story about 87 year old Margaret Maynard reminds me of the conversations I have accidentally overheard between my mother and her friends:

You have to smile...and be glad that some folks are reaching out to help the most vulnerable among us. But again, the poor are the proverbial miner's canary. In a cashless society, where most people are dependent on electronic debit cards, bank cards, or other devices for monetary exchange, they too are out of the loop when the power goes out. I would imagine only a few have cash monies on hand, hidden at home, in an envelope under the bed, or safely in a can located in the freezer for safe keeping.

Question: who will break first? Those who are already used to doing with less? Or those entitled, comfortable, and well-resourced, living in the exurbs (or in exclusive zip codes in the city) who have little tolerance--or coping skills--for dealing with life's difficulties, however minor?

Disasters expose the ugly realities of "normal" society. In those moments, when the great social leveler that is the government is rendered either impotent, moot, or a non-factor in its ability to stop a disaster from occurring, the ties that bind us together are strained. Moreover, here, government's ability to act as a salve and agent that masks social inequalities--or at least sweeps them under the rug in many cases--is removed.

Super Storm Sandy has revealed how New York is also a city of great divides in wealth and income. She is a multicultural mega city; New York is also a city where the very rich and the very poor exist in an exploitative relationship with one another.

The working class and poor, living on less than a living wage, make the lives of the rich and upper class comfortable and possible. As detailed here, the rich were able to take Super Storm Sandy in relative stride, riding it out in nice hotels, having an adventure of it all, and complaining about a lack of cell phone service and power.

By comparison, their maids, nannies, drives, assistants, and those many unnamed others who work in the service sector had to go to work during this time of peril for fear of losing their jobs, sleeping in cars or in shelters because they could not afford a hotel, or continuing to take care of the spoiled children of the rich while the care givers themselves were unable to offer comfort to their own kids.

It is estimated that there are tens of thousands, if not more, homeless people in New York City. They are families, children, men, women, the elderly, and the working poor. They are largely invisible not because we cannot see them. Rather, one of the survival skills that a person learns in order to successfully live in any city is to ignore the obvious, the pain, and the hurt of others. City life is an existence of social atomization. In order to function, most folks learn to look away both as a practical skill for maintaining sanity, and to avoid the frightening reality that many Americans are a paycheck away from being homeless themselves.

There are other homeless folks who are almost quite literally invisible. They are the "Mole People" who live in the subways of New York. It is estimated that there are thousands of people who live in this subterranean world, where they have established cities that live off of the electricity, scavenge the excess of a city that is decadent in its wastefulness, raise children and tend to pets, live and love, and make a civilization where they are the mayors, citizens, doctors, and police.

Next week, the American people will select their next President. The odds makers, stats junkies, and folks like Nate Silver are suggesting that Barack Obama has a higher probability of winning the presidency than does Mitt Romney.

However, probabilities are not predictions. Romney still has a significant chance of becoming the President of the United States of America. And as you know, I am putting my money on a combination of historical precedent where the country returns to its norm of having a white president, the power of white racial resentment and animus, and a skillful candidate in Mitt Romney who has run one of the most racist campaigns in modern politics against the country's first black president, combine to unseat Barack Obama.

Whatever the outcome next week, President Obama is going to be limited going forward.

If he loses, the irony is that Obama may be freed as a living legend to pursue the causes he most cares about, and to help people of color, the poor, and the working classes in ways that as President, he could not. If Obama wins, he will be bloodied and wounded. The Tea Party GOP will continue to obstruct his agenda. If Obama wins the electoral college, and loses the popular vote, all bets are off, as this outcome will only embolden the white nationalist secessionist crowd who are the base of the Republican Party.

The Right has already waged a war against Barack Obama's legitimacy. To them, he is not fit to be president because he is black and a Democrat. If Obama wins according to the rules, but not overwhelmingly the people's vote, the White Right, a group who hate Obama more than they love the United States, will be further emboldened in their wickedness and efforts to subvert the Common Good for their own narrow, parochial, self-interested agenda.

Here, Jimmy Snuka had returned to wrestling following a vicious beating by the white racist conservative, and "representative" of Apartheid era South Africa, Colonel De Beers. However, Snuka, like Obama, was not broken. This angle was one of the most overtly racist and honest plays on current events and politics in Cold War, 1980's professional wrestling. Racial slurs were casually used; Colonel De Beers channeled his hatred of non-whites; Audiences comprised of people from all racial backgrounds jeered the villain from South Africa.

Snuka was and is an elite and special wrestler. Obama is a special and unique American. If the latter wins reelection it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Obama will have expended so much energy in his battle with Romney's legions, that he will be unable to advance his agenda even as an incumbent. Snuka wore a neck brace, was beaten, and yet still later defeated Colonel De Beers in a series of great matches. In the end, the "good guy" inevitably won. This was great storytelling.

By contrast, President Obama may defeat Mitt Romney next week. But, President Obama will still lose in the near term.

Consequently, Obama had better watch Jimmy Snuka's interview for some tips about the speech he will give on election night: as either victor or vanquished, the tone will not be that different. Obama will be broken, but perhaps he can still find a way to win in the long-term.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

An earlier commenter chimed in about the beauty of "black names." My concern there was that what many consider "black" names are really a function of poverty, social isolation, and marginalization. I understand the meta argument about black naming practices as a function of a particular history of cultural resistance where personhood rites as basic as naming practices were stolen by white supremacy and chattel slavery.

But, does the young sister on the West Side of Chicago or South Central Los Angeles really believe that naming her baby "Uneqqee" or "Deshawn" is an act of cultural resistance? Or is it just an example of trying to be "different" while paradoxically conforming to the norms of their social network?

Freakonomics has some interesting things to say about this matter. My claim is complementary to Dr. Roland Fryer's: cultural norms between communities are diverse and not fixed. In said communities, certain cultural signifiers will be received and understood according to the norms and rules in that locale or subculture. Call me a cultural (and structural) materialist, but social institutions do heavily determine outcomes and culture.

For example, the 1% certainly have their own set of cultural cues that I, as a member of the working class, know nothing about. The ghetto underclass is operating in a similar way. My concern as someone who cares deeply about black folks and our success, is that we have entire communities of people who are equipping their children with names--as well as teaching them certain values and norms--that have no currency outside of a 4 square block area. This type of social capital has a negative rate of return in communities and life worlds outside of the 'hood.

Many of the urban and black poor are ghettoized both geographically and culturally. Their "creative" naming practices have nothing to do with African-American "culture" or "history." Rather, they are ways of finding meaning and value in lives and communities where both are often in short supply. As such, many "black" names are a result of ghettoized minds and a poverty of material circumstances (and failed schools) that have become internalized as part of one's whole self.

I am a fan of Chris Matthews. He is one of the few people in the mainstream media who has had the courage to call out Mitt Romney's racist campaign against Barack Obama. While he was a few months late doing so, and yes, I wish Matthews had acknowledged folks like myself and others who have long been speaking truth to power about Romney's racism.

I remain a supporter of his "real talk" approach to political analysis and calling out Romney's post-truth campaign of lies.

However, on Tuesday's edition of Hardball, Matthews simply dropped the ball. It happens to all of us.

While making a direct intervention about Romney's troubled relationship with the truth, Matthews highlighted how the Republican candidate lacked any evidence of character, of a defining moment where the Republican candidate communicated to the public what he really stood for, and the type of man he really is.

Matthews cited examples of true grit by other presidents in order to make this point by comparison.

Problematically, one of those examples included (then candidate) Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment, when before he became a living legend and supposed friend of black people, the former President called out a mid to low tier black rap artist of middling fame and importance, in order to sure up his bonafides with Reagan Democrats and white independents. Clinton was a "new Democrat." As such, Clinton had to demonstrate how he was not a "liberal." Condemning black people was a convenient means to that end.

Sister Souljah was a stand-in for the mythic welfare queen and "troublesome" complaining black people who had suckled too long on the government tit. Clinton won the presidency, and the support of white voters in 1992, in no small part by mining white racial resentment, and playing on the white racial frame.

In alluding to that example, Chris Matthews made a clear error: appeals to white racial resentment, and "putting the blacks in their place," are not a sign of weakness for white candidate. Rather, they are a way for white candidates to demonstrate character and strength to the white public.

As such, Mitt Romney has had many such "Sister Souljah moments." When the Republican candidate speaks to the NAACP and tells them to their face that they are parasites and he will do nothing for them, or when Romney and his surrogates say that the country's first black president as a lazy welfare king, white people's money stealing, lazy incompetent bum, he has far surpassed Bill Clinton's signifying on Sister Souljah.

The ultimate point of Clinton's mention of Sister Souljah--and what Matthews forgot--was to demonstrate how black people are anti-citizens who need to be disciplined. White people could trust Clinton to do so. Romney's whole campaign is similarly oriented: he will keep the "uppity blacks" like Obama, and those inspired by him in their place; Romney is no friend to the colored or darker races--this is why so many white voters are flocking (against their economic self-interest) to support the Republican candidate.

American society is sick with racism. We all inhale and breathe it in. Consequently, even when they are speaking the truth, and their hearts are in the right place, pundits like Chris Matthews can make an honest mistake and use ill-fitting, improper examples to make a compelling point about Mitt Romney's cowardice.

Matthews' error was not fatal. But, it was a healthy reminder of how the white racial frame operates across both sides of the political divide.

Mitt Romney has continued to expand his support among white working class (male) voters. In a base election, where mobilizing one's existing supporters and bringing in some new independents is the key to victory, Romney's chances have only improved because of this huge advantage with that cohort.

However, much of the emphasis on the white working class vote is a result of misunderstandings about the American electorate. Class is still largely correlated with vote choice where poor and working class people, across the color line, still overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates.

The white male working class vote that Romney is chasing--and expanding--over Obama is actually comprised of white men who are not college educated, but make a fair sum of money as construction workers, truck drivers, or in the skilled trades. These are the "angry white men" that are the base of the Tea Party GOP and central to Mitt Romney's ascent in the polls. For several decades Democrats have lost this cohort; the country's first black president has no chance of winning them back.

Dusty's character was complex: on one hand he played the "white negro" who was cheered by fans of all colors. Rhodes also flirted with racial stereotypes, where he was a stylistically "black" wrestler (his interview in the Legends round table series on this topic is very honest and sincere. All smart marks owe it to themselves to watch it).

Rhodes further added to the contradictions and complications of his relationship to blackness, when in his later years he worked with an African American valet named "Sapphire." Yes, her name was Sapphire. Then as in now, professional wrestling is, and was, not known for its subtlety.

Dutsty's promo on being a working class man who was hit with hard times by the monied classes is one of the greatest examples of mic work in the history of the business. Every trade or craft has a core set of competencies, examples of masterful craft, a literature of sorts, which forms the basis for what we in that world aspire to be if we reach its heights.

This promo is one such example. If Joe Biden--or maybe Bill Clinton--could reach out to white working class voters just like Dusty did those years ago with this promo, then Obama's electoral fortunes would be much improved. Obama is a ghetto nerd. I have not doubt that he was a mark for Dusty Rhodes back in the day. I just wish that those lessons had stayed with him.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

I hope all of you who are being directly impacted by Superstorm Sandy are safe, warm, and well. My thoughts are with you. Life and death matters do put politics in perspective; but politics and the election continue onward even though we are humbled by mother nature.

Last week, I pointed out how Mitt Romney has lost two debates but gained support among undecideds and white independents. By contrast, if Obama has done so poorly he would have lost even more support among a fickle white public.

Low information and undecided voters use other cues to make up their minds about a candidate. One of them is racial affinity. This plays out through a default choice for the white candidate, where Romney's whiteness is a cue about the country's return to "normality" for those voters.

Romney's strategists know that white identity politics are the path to the White House. As such, their strategy of naked racial appeals and covert dog whistles has been the go-to-plan--one that is bearing great fruit among white voters.

As this new poll from NPR suggests, once more, white privilege is a hell of a drug. A white candidate can lose two debates against the black guy, but Whiteness is a cognitive map that turns defeat, failure, incompetence, practiced lying and political subterfuge into measures of competence, and makes a Romney victory increasingly likely.

The wages of whiteness remain great:

A new National Public Radio poll, which had President Obama leading Mitt Romney 51 percent to 44 percent four weeks ago, now has Mitt Romney on top, 48 percent to 47 percent, with the Republican benefiting from his debate performances.

The poll found that among likely voters, 34 percent said Romney's debate performances made them more likely to vote for the challenger while 28 percent said they now are more likely to vote for the president. Among critical independent voters, though, Romney won big, with 37 percent saying they are now more likely to chose him compared to 21 percent for Obama.

But Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and Republican pollster Whit Ayres found that Obama leads by 4 points in the 12 battleground states that appear ready to pick the winner for the rest of the country next Tuesday. And they suggest that Romney's post-debate surge has "stalled."

The duo surveyed 1,000 likely voters nationwide with an over-sampling in 12 battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. The poll was conducted Tuesday through Thursday (October 23-25). The margin of error is 3 percentage points for the national sample, and 4.5 percentage points for the smaller subsample (462 respondents) in the battleground states. The sample was 35 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican.

Ayers said that Romney is doing particularly well among independent voters. According to NPR, "most of the gains for Romney have come from independents, who went from favoring Romney by a few points before the debates to favoring him 51% to 39% after the debates."

Ayres added, "So were it not for the debates, I think Obama would be cruising to a victory right now. Because of the debates, this is going to be an incredibly close election."

Romney also beat Obama as the candidate best prepared to handle the issues of jobs, the deficit and taxes, but Obama won on more issues: health care, Medicare, foreign policy and national security.

What's more, those polled said that Obama, by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin, has spelled out a clear agenda for the nation.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Who has more wives and women? Ric Flair or Mitt Romney? I will leave that one up to you to answer.

Ric Flair is one of the greatest in-ring performers to ever live. Mitt Romney is a master of lies and subterfuge. As Werner Herzog's Bear, a friend of We Are Respectable Negroes smartly suggested, the Tea Party GOP challenger is running a truly postmodern campaign where truth and reality are made subjective. Here, Romney's lies are just reframings of empirical reality that spit in the face of modernist philosophical conventions. I do wonder how Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, or Harvey would respond to Mitt Romney's post-truth campaign?

As I have suggested many times, and the mainstream media are finally conceding, Romney is running one of the most racist political campaigns in recent memory. Mitt's use of subtle racial cues, focus group perfected allusions to Obama as a welfare king thief that steals from good white people, who Romney in turn calls "boy" to his face during the first debate, and whose surrogates deploy naked racist appeals to white racial anxiety and old school bigotry, embody a synergy of contemporary racism in the Age of Obama that is both a perfect and "ugly beautiful" thing.

In this clip of Ric Flair during this feud with Butch Reed, the latter being one of the first black professional wrestlers to gain mainstream acceptance in a major territory, says what Romney is 1) either thinking or 2) trying to prime in the minds of his Tea Party GOP base. To them, Obama has no place in the White House because he is African-American, and therefore, not White.

Flair's suggestion in this promo that a black man is "a monkey with no brains" is not at all too different from the subtext of Romney's political speeches and commercials as of late, the racist utterances of his closest advisers on national television, or the seething racial hostility that drives the country's de facto White People's Political Alliance and Political Action Group otherwise known as the Republican Party.

Ric Flair simply said about Butch Reed what Mitt Romney wishes he had the courage and nerve to say about Obama publicly. The meaning and intent remain the same either way. Romney yearns for Flair's sense of style, and the ability to cut such beautifully racist promos against Barack Obama, the President of the United States, and the first black man to hold such a title and position.

This evening's World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view Hell in the Cell featured one of the worst matches in recent professional wrestling history. There were a few good matches on the card. One of the highlights of the evening, Big Show's match with Sheamus, was far better than it deserved to be. It was an old school match that offered some great storytelling and worked around the limitations of both competitors.

At this point, Show vs. Sheamus is a match of the year contender.

Question: for those of you who watch professional wrestling did you ever think that you would hear Big Show's name ever used proximate to the phrase "match of the year?"

By comparison, Ryback's match (Grantland has a great piece on the rise of that very improbable main eventer which is worth reading) with Chicago's own CM Punk was akin to the darkest days of WCW or TNA. Yes, the WWE was put in a horrible position when John Cena had to have surgery and bow out of the planned match. But the ending of the match was inexcusable. It was beyond lazy and disrespectful to the audience in attendance, as well as any other folks who paid money to see the event.

Management must have know how horrible Ryback is in the ring: he has a skill set that consists of five moves plus a Bushwackers inspired 1980s march around the ring spot; the powers that be did not want to waste one of Lesnar's limited appearances on a run-in to provide proper closure to the match; And Cena was not going to be soiled by having anything to do with such a horrible match. Even with his great skills, CM Punk could not carry Ryback to a respectable match.

We are ten days out from election day. This week will be filled with obligatory hand-ringing, obsessing about the poll numbers as though they contain a secret truth to be divined by the holy pundit classes who read tea leaves and chicken bones, and doomsday prophecies about what will occur if Mitt Romney wins--and he will--the White House.

In case you hadn't heard, a "Frankenstorm" is also menacing the East Coast.

The news cycle will be high stress and all drama. The horse race the pundits wanted between Romney and Obama has been ushered into being--by the talking head commentariat class. Now, the spin doctors can add a hurricane as a data point about how weather impacts voter turnout. Hint: bad weather hurts the side whose voters are less enthusiastic and motivated. In addition, bad weather helps the party whose voters tend to have more resources. On both counts, the weather would help Romney.

Do pardon the pun, but all of these events together really are a perfect storm for the 24 hour news cycle.

This week, I have a few serious pieces that I will be sharing here and elsewhere. I will also be on Ring of Fire radio this weekend talking about race, Obama, and the election. Doing a show right before election day is a high honor. I appreciate being asked to sit in with the band before the big dance.

Jesse Ventura's interview is a nice lead in and prompt for that conversation. Each day this week, I will be sharing a few short examples of how professional wrestling is a powerful lens into the realities of American politics. Professional wrestling is scripted. But, it is a far more honest representation of the realities of race and politics in the post-civil rights era, as well as the Age of Obama, than the mainstream news media (what is a cowardly Fourth Estate that long ago abdicated its responsibilities as the guardians of democracy) could ever dare to be.

In all, this week should be a fun and insightful exploration of how popular culture and politics are deeply intertwined in American politics and beyond. Plus, you get to see sweaty men and women in tights yelling at each other, emoting, cutting promos, and in some cases, beating each other up.

Broken communities, broken homes, and broken families make broken people. America is a violent society. As such, I am not surprised by the vicious beating dealt out by Lil Reese upon an unidentified young girl in the above video.

However, I am fascinated by the various norms and values which are given life at the intersection of commercial hip hop and ghetto street subculture.

We are in the home stretch before the election. Consequently, many members of the chattering classes are holding their fire and best shots until the middle and end of next week. In a marathon they say you need to save up some energy and push through the last lap. I am following that rule, and taking the intermission--the lull before the storm--to write about some things which I have been thinking about, but have not the opportunity to share. Election fatigue has set in; let us clear our minds by discussing semi-related matters.

Said concept is one that many race men and race women have been analyzing for more than one hundred years. The language of "white privilege" has seeped into the public discourse through the work of good folks like Time Wise. And even he would admit that it was people of color like Du Bois, Ellison, and others who had arrived there long before white public intellectuals and activists even uttered the phrase. The reality of white privilege being what it is, the fact remains that many white folks will listen and respond to certain truths from other white people, while simultaneously remaining deaf to the same observations, when they come from a black or a brown person.

I would extend the same model to "straight" people, men, the middle class, and other groups who are defined as "normal" or "ideal" in this society as well.

While watching this interview, one in which a seemingly honest and vulnerable white elder reflects upon white racism, I am made to feel uncomfortable. This interview could do good work with the right audience; on the other hand it feels like a cheap parlor trick where someone conjures up a white person to tell the darker races, the oppressed, and people of color who have had to navigate the color line, exactly what we want to hear.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

White privilege is the bundle of unearned advantages that comes with being categorized as "white" in American society. Those of us who study race and politics often have a hard time convincing white people--and some others overly identified with Whiteness--of how this dynamic impacts our society.

On Tuesday, Mitt Romney was embarrassed by Barack Obama in a debate about foreign policy. There, Romney was a child trying to engage in a fist fight against a grown man, and subsequently had his behind, almost quite literally, handed to him. Obama thrashed Mitt Romney in the prior debate as well. Thus, a puzzle and conundrum: Mitt Romney has gained support among white voters after both horrible performances.

Let me be clear: Barack Obama did poorly in the first debate against Mitt Romney. However, Obama's sub par performance was better than either of Romney's performances in the last two contests. But, Romney is gaining in the polls with white voters who somehow see him as "qualified" enough to be President after losing two debates in a row against the president.

The empirical evidence has long suggested that presidential debates are unimportant for voters' decisions on election day. We have also never had a black president running for a second term. I would suggest that this upsets all of our existing models and explanations.

Obama is playing a game that folks who look like him are not supposed to be involved in. Black Americans have been defined for centuries as "anti-citizens," and had to be specifically written back into the Constitution in order to correct what was a gross birth defect at the heart of "the greatest democracy" in the world. Obama's rise to the presidency is an anomaly in the the American political tradition.

Consequently, all rules are now off and need to be rewritten as we try to conceptualize Barack Obama's run for reelection within the long arch of race and politics in American history.

The counter-factual is very telling. Consider the following scenario for a moment.

You should always stand by what you write. One should always maintain intellectual integrity because words have a life of their own. As such, they can come back many years to either haunt or heap praise upon you. As such, my essays on black mob violence, and the transparent thinking through of the difficulties and challenges of writing about such a subject that occurred there, are two of my favorite moments as a mid-tier member of the online commentariat class.

The SPLC is spot on in describing the cottage industry that gave birth to the black flash mob meme. The polite racists and more overt white nationalists are obsessed with that narrative because it fulfills their dark fantasies of black criminality and hoodlum, street pirate culture. Their racial blinders are incapable of accepting that the vast majority of people of color, and especially those who live near the highwaymen street brigands that prey in mass, on the vulnerable and the innocent, are even more disgusted with the criminal element in the community. We have equal disdain for all criminals across the color line.

As the SPLC points out, for the WorldNetDaily and White Nationalist crowd (to the degree they can now be separated from one another) their obsession only goes one way--from black crime to white victims.

Leah Nelson's piece also calls attention to the role played by the human chaff known as black conservatives, and their enabling of the white nationalist themes present on WorldNetDaily where she observes how:

Of course, as WND publisher Joseph Farah bragged (unverifiably but
implausibly) in August, WND “showcases twice as many black columnists
than any other news or commentary forum in the world.”

Who are they? Well, there’s black neo-secessionist Walter E.
Williams, who in a 2002 column for WND wrote that Abraham Lincoln “acted
unconstitutionally and with ruthless contempt for the founding
principles” when he refused to let the Confederacy secede peaceably. And
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black radio personality who once thanked God for slavery
and who in a 2005 column for WND wrote, “It was blacks’ moral poverty –
not their material poverty – that cost them dearly in New Orleans”
during and after Hurricane Katrina.

There’s Thomas Sowell, an economist at Stanford’s Hoover Institute and sometime contributor to the white nationalist Social Contract magazine, whose praise for White Girl Bleed a Lot is featured prominently on that book’s web site. And Erik Rush, author of Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,
which argues that “the undue and inordinate affinity for blacks (as
opposed to antipathy toward them) that has been promoted by activists,
politicians and the establishment press for the past 40 years … has
fostered an erroneous perception of blacks, particularly in America,”
leading to a state of affairs in which “racism on the part of blacks is
[considered] acceptable, or even proper.”

Yes, WND has binders full of black writers. And now, in keeping
perhaps with publisher Farah’s declaration that his website boasts “the
broadest spectrum of political opinion to be found anywhere in the
world,” it has a white nationalist propagandist too.

How can you not love such an "inclusive" organization? The joys of multicultural America are many.

Just a shameless self-directed plug as always. The good folks over at the Thom Hartmann radio program (which will be guest hosted by our friend Mike Papantonio) have invited me by for a sit down at 3pm Eastern Standard Time. We will be discussing last night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

It should be fun. If I can mention G.I. Joe on live radio, in the context of discussing Mitt Romney's amateurish view of foreign policy, I will consider it one more success for the ghetto nerd set.

The final debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama was a technocratic affair in which the challenger borrowed the incumbent's positions in order to prevent a knockout defeat.

I cannot imagine an independent or low information voter being able to follow Monday night's debate for any sustained amount of time.

Obama clearly defeated Mitt Romney following a devastating flurry of blows to the head and body--this was the equivalent of an adult beating up an impudent child--alas, it will not matter in terms of the final vote.

Few issues of legitimate disagreement or substance were discussed in Monday's debate. As Chris Matthews smartly pointed out, there was no mention of how multipolar our world had become, or how Europe's economic crisis has impacted America's economy. Those are epic fails on the part of the moderator.

Interestingly, there was no question about either the decline of peak oil or the threat posed by global warming. Much time was instead spent on the chimera issue of the United States' relationship with Israel. The Israel Lobby is not going anywhere, for either candidate, now or in the near future. The public and candidates' energies would be better spent talking about other matters.

While no substantive disagreements about the reality of American Empire took place during the final debate, there were however a few moments which revealed a frightening divergence in expertise and temperament between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Who is Chauncey DeVega?

I am the editor and founder of We Are Respectable Negroes, as well as the host of the podcast known as "The Chauncey DeVega Show".

I am also a race man in progress, Black pragmatist, ghetto nerd, cultural critic and essayist.

I have been a guest on the BBC, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Make it Plain, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Thom Hartmann radio show, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground.

I have also been interviewed on the RT Network and Free Speech TV.

My writing has been featured by Salon, Alternet, The New York Daily News, and the Daily Kos.

My work has also been referenced by MSNBC, as well as online magazines and publications such as The Atlantic, Slate, The Week, The New Republic, Buzzfeed, The Daily Beast, The Washington Times, The Nation, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Judge me by my enemies. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams, Herman Cain, Alex Jones, World Net Daily, Twitchy, the Free Republic, NewsBusters, the Media Research Council, Project 21, and Weasel Zippers have made it known that they do not like me very much.